Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports-09.txt> (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Procedures for the Management of the Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry) to BCP

[Paul Hoffman <[e-mail]>]

On 1/31/11 8:13 AM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
> Hmm ... I don't agree that solves the issue.
>
> Well lets say the request was coming from 3GPP for a protocol they
> designed - why should IANA be able to tell them no but IETF yes.

Because IANA is responsible for maintaining the usefulness of the 
registry. Part of that is "don't hand out ports unnecessarily", and part 
of that is "hand out ports without hassle to those who are trusted to 
ask for them wisely". If 3GPP can show it belongs in the latter 
category, great. Until then, the only body that is there is "IETF 
consensus" plus maybe "IESG pressure".

> I think the policy issue here is fairly clear. We do not have
> consensus that in all cases that one should not have a second port
> for security (I'm basing this assertion on Magnus read of WG
> consensus and my read of IETF LC consensus). Therefore that should
> not be a ground for the expert reviewer (or IANA) to reject the
> registration. The document needs to be updated to make that clear or
> it does not reflect consensus. If the authors of the draft want to
> propose text for conditions when it would be ok to reject a second
> port for security purposes and see if they can get consensus for that
> text, that seems perfectly reasonable.
>
> I'm sure that some people believe the draft, by using the word
> "strives", actually means that this is not a grounds for rejection
> but given the push back from Lars and Joe, I believe that "strives"
> means that the decision is up to Joe. Given things could be read
> either ways, I think it's fair to ask for the draft to clarify this.

Fully agree.